875 F.3d 1132
D.D.C.2017Background
- The Ambassador Bridge (Detroit–Windsor) is privately owned by Detroit International Bridge Co. and has operated since 1929; the owner planned a privately financed "Twin Span."
- In 2012 Michigan officials entered a Crossing Agreement with Canada to build a new government-backed bridge within two miles of the Ambassador Bridge. The Secretary of State approved the Agreement under 33 U.S.C. § 535a (IBA §3) and issued a Presidential Permit under § 535b (IBA §4).
- The Company sued in federal court (D.D.C.), asserting nine counts: nondelegation (Compact Clause), statutory and APA challenges, takings/equal protection, and claims interfering with its asserted rights to maintain/expand the Ambassador Bridge.
- The district court dismissed seven counts for failure to state a claim and granted summary judgment for defendants on another count (Count 7) for reasons including Rule 19 indispensable-party concerns and merits. The Company appealed four dismissals and the summary judgment ruling.
- The D.C. Circuit affirmed: it held the Secretary’s approval under §3 was not arbitrary or capricious, the Company had no implied exclusive or perpetual right to block competing bridges, the §3 delegation satisfied the intelligible-principle test, and the §4 Presidential Permit decision was not judicially reviewable under the APA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Secretary of State unlawfully approved the Crossing Agreement under §3 (Count 7) | Secretary failed to properly inquire into Michigan law and relied on insufficient state legal opinions; approval arbitrary and capricious | Secretary need only assess national-foreign-policy effects; relied on authoritative state AG and Governor counsel; no clear error | Approval reasonable; no arbitrary/capricious action; summary judgment for defendants affirmed |
| Whether approval violated Company’s statutory/contractual rights to operate/build Twin Span (Counts 2–3) | Company claims prior congressional acts and appropriations protect a right to build/operate a Twin Span and to be free from competing bridges | Congressional authorizations do not confer an exclusive perpetual profit or franchise; no implied exclusivity | Dismissed: no express statutory right to exclusivity; Charles River Bridge principle applies |
| Whether §3 delegation to Secretary of State violates nondelegation/Compact Clause (Count 1) | Delegation lacks an intelligible principle; Congress gave no standards | Delegation limited to international-bridge context and foreign-affairs judgment; statutory purpose and context supply guiding principle | Delegation constitutional: intelligible principle exists given narrow context and Secretary’s foreign-affairs role |
| Whether issuance of Presidential Permit under §4 is reviewable under APA (Count 6) | Permit issuance is final agency action and reviewable; APA applies | Presidential action in foreign-affairs is political and discretionary; decision committed to agency/President; not reviewable | Not reviewable under APA §701(a)(2); foreign-affairs discretion precludes judicial review |
Key Cases Cited
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (administrative arbitrary-and-capricious standard)
- Bowman Transp. Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, 419 U.S. 281 (standard for agency clear error of judgment)
- Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 420 (no implied exclusive public franchise)
- Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass’ns, 531 U.S. 457 (intelligible-principle nondelegation discussion)
- Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1 (broader delegations permissible in foreign affairs)
- Am. Power & Light Co. v. SEC, 329 U.S. 90 (statutory context informs delegation scope)
- TOMAC v. Norton, 433 F.3d 852 (D.C. Cir. decision upholding delegation with defined area and purpose)
- Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 (invalid delegation where no guiding standards)
- Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (limits on APA review of Presidential action)
- Dist. No. 1, Pac. Coast Dist., Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Ass’n v. Maritime Admin., 215 F.3d 37 (foreign-policy decisions not fit for judicial review)